The Hero Pattern (Could Jesus be fake?)...

So every building that was near the temple has been destroyed? Not an original one is left? (Honest questions, I really do not know the answers)

And in all reality, at some point or another in the future this could be said about many buildings. The only ones that it seems this would not apply
to are "The Great Pyramid" and other pyramids. As well as some Greek architecture.

I believe it was torn to the ground. Theres a mosque on the site now Dome of the Rock, if you look at the breaking news I posted a story today about
an earth quake on the temple site... left a hole... big things are starting to happen.

2"Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown
down."

The use of buildings implies that there was more than one that was torn down. And the use of all would imply that all the buildings in sight were
being selected. Also he said that "not one stone will be left on another". So that would mean not only were they torn down, that the left
over rubble was not used to create other buildings. Or if it was none of the stones are touching one another.

Jerusalem was totally destroyed and as Jesus had predicted - not one stone was left upon another. When the Temple was set on fire the Roman soldiers
tore apart the stone to get the melted gold. The Menorah and vessels were carried to Rome and the treasury was robbed.

The Temple itself was totally destroyed, though the wall supporting the area upon which the Temple was built was left partially intact and a portion
of it remains to this day, called the Western Wall. (Ref. 2)

This would seem indicate that some stones were left standing.

Also, reading the source provided me with another question.

Danial predicted this event would happen after the Messiah. How do we know that Jesus was not just re-telling that story? If he was not the Messiah,
that means that the temple would still be destroyed after his departure. And the same holds true if he was the Messiah.

n the first hundred years after the city and Temple were destroyed, there was high expectation among the Jews that they would once again return to
their land and rebuild that which was devastated.

Did they use some of the stones from the previous city? If they did, which would be a common practice. Then there would still be stones that are one
atop another.

The only reason I say this, is that if what Jesus said is to be taken to heart. Then there should have been no stones re-used. Please note, that I
am not referring to the stones of the temple, which were destroyed for the molten gold that covered them. However the other buildings nearby did not
have this gold imprint, and therefore can we assume that they were not destroyed in the same fashion?

It is possible that Bar Kochba attempted to rebuild the Temple.

As a side note, isn't this one of the qualities of the revelations "Anti-Christ"?

From ancient records we can glean some information about visible remains of the Temple after its destruction. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (A.D.
260-340) testified that he could still see the remains of the sanctuary. He said that the large stone blocks were hauled away to build sanctuaries
and theaters.

Looks like some of the stone blocks did stand on top of one another again.

If what Jesus said was "truth" then how come some of these blocks are still together?

This is going to sound like we're splitting hairs but it happened exactly the way Jesus said it would: Not one stone was left upon the other. The
temple was totally 100% destroyed. The Western Wall was nothing but the perimeter of the temple mount and not the temple itself.

Let's say you have a home set on a foundation with a gate surrounding your property. Someone tells you they are going to completely destroy your
house. They do but leave the foundation slab and outer fence. Okay. You're home was still destroyed.

Jerusalem was destroyed as well and left in ruins. What exists today is the city built upon the ruins exactly as prophesied for the end times. The
actual temple (inner courts and the holy of holies) were utterly destroyed as well as Jerusalem. Only ruins remained. The Western Wall is only a ruin
of the wall from the very outer courts. And if you want to take into consideration some people's views you can do that too. They do not believe where
the current temple mount is located is where the second temple actually stood.

1As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!"

2"Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

Again, I am pointing out the usage of ALL and buildingS.\

www.dictionary.com

all /ɔl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[awl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. the whole of (used in referring to quantity, extent, or duration)
3. the greatest possible (used in referring to quality or degree)
4. every: all kinds; all sorts.
5. any; any whatever: beyond all doubt.
6. nothing but; only: The coat is all wool.
9. the whole quantity or amount: He ate all of the peanuts. All are gone.
10. the whole number; every one: all of us.
14. wholly; entirely; completely: all alone.

And clearly it wasn't all destroyed. And there are stones still standing one on top of another.

Not to disqualify, but to show that the Bible may not be 100% truth. Also, what about using the stones to build other buildings? That would imply
that the stones still stand one on another.

The second point is really more important to me than the wall that is still standing. Since JC reportedly said that the buildings would be destroyed
not the walls. But he also reportedly said that no stone would be on top of another. If he was incorrect about this, what else could he have been
incorrect about?

Also, I understand that he "predicted" the event. I am not discounting that aspect of it. However to show what I think of his prediction I will
give one of my own...

As I look at Los Angeles I say, "After I die, Not a building will be left complete".

The question here is, when is "after". In millions of years this could possibly happen. Making my prediction true. Or in less time than that a
huge earthquake could send California to the bottom of the ocean, again prediction could be true. Or on an easier scale, remodeling is done on the
buildings, not the same complete as when I made the prediction, making it true.

Nostradamus made many predictions, and many people do not think he has any merit. Even when it seems that some of those predictions have come
"true" (true in the sense of my above prediction). Look at the amount of predictions on this site alone. The only difference with the majority of
the ones here, is that a specific date is given. Blah Blah will happen in 2012, or Blah Blah will start in 2008. I wonder what date JC would have
given if he were asked?

On a different note. I was browsing the forums last night, and noticed another thread on the valididty of Jesus. In this thread the op states:

The topic of Jesus, the alleged son of God. Theres no historical evidence or proof of his existence.

His source of this statement comes from this:

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All
claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named
Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after
the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical
writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even
if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources
derive from hearsay accounts.

Now we have discussed a letter written by a Roman. I wonder, is their any other evidence? That letter is a good start, but again I point to these
forums. How many times have we seen hoaxed material? Or threads with "100% proof" in the title?

Matthew 24:1-2. "Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings
[remember the temple had different sections]. 'Do you see all these things?' he asked. 'I tell you the truth not one stone here will be left upon
the other. Every one will be thrown down.'"

The wall is not the temple buildings.

Mark 13:1-2. Same thing. It all revolved around the temple buildings. Luke 21:5-6. Again, the temple. I'm not understanding where the confusion is.

THALLUS (~ 52 A.D.)
...Thallus' explanation of the midday darkness which occurred during the Passover of Jesus' crucifixion. Thallus tries to dismiss the darkness as a
natural occurrence...

This would look to be that he thought that what happened at the event was a natural event. Of course we are currently debating whether or not Jesus
existed. So this looks to be one that would apply. However, when did he write this passage? Was he present for the event? Unfortunately it seems
that his works are fragmented, and these answers do not seem to be within the fragments. So this one I am going to have to omit, unless there is some
evidence that he was present for the event.

MARA BAR-SERAPION (Post 70 A.D)

...Though it is obvious he does not acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God...

...What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished...The Jews, ruined and
driven from their land, live in complete dispersion...Nor did the wise King die for good. He lived on in the teaching which He had given...

Well this seems to also have been written after Jesus. And it also seems that he was not present for the "teachings" or "death". So this would
fall under the category of hearsay. Unless evidence can be provided that he was present for any of these things. Even if it was included, he seems
to agree with me that Jesus was not the son of "God".

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (37 - 100 A.D.)

...Josephus was born only three years after the crucifixion of Jesus, making him a credible witness to the historicity of Jesus...

Hearsay, he was not present for any of Jesus' life.

CLEMENT OF ROME (? - 98? A.D.)

...Some speculate Paul was referring to Clement in Philippians 4:3 but this cannot be proven...

The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ is from God, and the
Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed
order. Having therefore received a charge, and being fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God
will full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings
that the kingdom of God should come. So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their first fruits, when they had proved them by the
Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.

He does not state that he received the gospel from Jesus. I can not seem to find any text stating that he ever met Jesus. So I am going to have to
put this into Hearsay as well. Again, unless evidence can be provided that he met Jesus.

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (? - ~100 A.D)

Ignatius was a Bishop of Antioch reported to have been appointed to his position by Peter of whom he was a disciple. He is also believed to be a
disciple of Paul and John.

Again, I can not find anything that shows he met Jesus. Unfortunately, this will be under hearsay unless there is evidence that he met Jesus.

What I am looking for is an eyewitness account, other than the Bible, that places Jesus on the Earth, and as the son of "God". While they are all
interesting accounts, none of them seem to have met Jesus. If Jesus preached to all of those people, there should be at least one eye witness account
of those teachings. Also, why did Jesus not write any of his teachings down? To teach ones who would live well after his death. If his way was the
truth, he should have wanted to preserve that truth by other means, not just preachings by other men. Who many agree are not perfect (I mean man in
general). How can perfection be shown through an non-perfect device?

Originally posted by adigregorio
This would look to be that he thought that what happened at the event was a natural event.

And as Christian apologists of his day refuted, the natural explanation Thallus offered for the darkness (an eclipse) was not
physically/astronomically possible. The eclipse could not have coincided with the Passover feast and its moon phases.

Marion Serpion.
Well this seems to also have been written after Jesus.

Do you believe Alexander the Great existed? Just curious because the accounts of his lifetime go up to 500 years after his death. There is not a
single eye witness account of his lifetime. Unlike Jesus who is believed to have several.

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
Hearsay, he was not present for any of Jesus' life.

So you do not believe Josephus would have had access to the Roman records now lost to us? Remember, Jesus' birth was recorded in Roman documents that
did not survive to our time.

CLEMENT OF ROME
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH

Same as above. No, they did not personally meet Jesus. The eye witness accounts by Matthew, possibly Mark, John, James, Peter, and Jude were all
included in the Bible but skeptics don't accept those because it's 'religious stuff.' They want evidence outside of the Bible. You offer that and
then they say it's hearsay. lol What they fail to realize is compared to 99% of the people of antiquity there is actually more written about Jesus
than anyone else. But of course they never doubt the existence of those figures.

Anyways, I think it's time for me to bow out of the discussion gracefully. I'm pulling my hair out and there is no such thing as a convincing wig.

Whosoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.

Luke 12:10

Everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be
forgiven.

Now Jesus may, or may not, love me I can not answer this. I can say that according to the book we have been debating I can not be forgiven of my
eternal sin. In fact on of my main reasons for commiting that sin, is if my beliefs are wrong I want to make sure I go to "hell". I would hate
spending eternity in a place where I knew there were countless "souls" going through such pain and torment.

AshleyD--

Do you believe Alexander the Great existed? Just curious because the accounts of his lifetime go up to 500 years after his death. There is not
a single eye witness account of his lifetime. Unlike Jesus who is believed to have several.

I have not looked into Alexander the Great. So my stance on him is neither pro nor con. However, if I am thinking of the correct person did he have
any structures built in his name. (ie Castles, Cities, etc)

So you do not believe Josephus would have had access to the Roman records now lost to us? Remember, Jesus' birth was recorded in Roman
documents that did not survive to our time.

How do we know that his birth was recorded in Roman documents if we do not have said documents? And about Josephus, I can't count how many times on
these boards people have claimed to have had access to "truth" when it would seem they did not. **note** I am not saying that these people did not
have the truth, but when asked for credentials they get upset or disappear.

An unforgivable sin is described in Mark 3 and Matthew 12. These passages involve Jesus Christ's repeated and widespread public defeat of Satan and
his demons. Many readers and theologians have been confused about the true nature of this sin. As you read these verses for yourself (below), bear in
mind part of the purpose of Jesus Christ's ministry was to directly confront darkness with the light of truth in a public battle of pure good versus
pure evil. The only being in the universe that is more powerful than the Evil One, is God. He is the only one with enough power to bind Satan himself
and forcibly dispossess him.

I do not believe he was talking about demons. And really it matters not, for I do not believe he was who is depicted in the bible. I have yet to see
any concrete evidence to say that person was nothing more than the "Hero Pattern".

Since you directed me to the link in AshleyD's signature, what do you think of my responses? And do we have any non-hearsay proof?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.